On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:46:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I don't think you mean derivative in the same way the USC 17 means
derivative, and I *really* don't think you mean it in the same way
Berne does. The idea that influence grants copyright is not common --
indeed, it's not in
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I create a program P that consists of an executable X linked with a
library L. X links with L, but P is a modification of L, albeit a
modification that was made by adding material to L.
Ok, in this case, you can either distribute it together in the L
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:32:01AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I create a program P that consists of an executable X linked with a
library L. X links with L, but P is a modification of L, albeit a
modification that was made by adding material to L.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 06:58:28PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 02:38:18PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
DFSG 3 was intended to forbid licensors from placing themselves in a
specially advantaged position. If not, why doesn't DSFG 3 simply say:
The license must allow modifications and derived works.
...hmm?
Perhaps DFSG 3 is looking at it from the point
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:20:22PM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Francesco Paolo Lovergine frankie at debian.org writes:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:04:32PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
The MySQL folks have a *new* statement, that should satisfy the DFSG, and
should be released w/ the next
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The plain reading says you may not alter or remove copyright
notices. That means, as far as I can tell, that you can not alter
or remove such notices without breaking the license. If it was
supposed to mean something else, surely they would have written
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, consider the annotation :
This doesn't really need to be stated, since to do so would be
fraudulent.
Do we really need to continue arguing about this close ?
Yes -- the annotation is incorrect. This is much more restrictive
than the
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:58:16AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, consider the annotation :
This doesn't really need to be stated, since to do so would be
fraudulent.
Do we really need to continue arguing about this close ?
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:57:20AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The plain reading says you may not alter or remove copyright
notices. That means, as far as I can tell, that you can not alter
or remove such notices without breaking the license.
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about something vaguely like:
If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
to that party, you must either:
a) Distribute the complete
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You must include appropriate and accurate copyright notices on each
source file, and in a reasonable and appropriate place in any binary
file.
Not clear enough. A quick reader would read that you can replace the copyright
notice by another. Also, QPL 3
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If they did not pick on this, there is sane reason to say this is
ok.
I don't think that is a safe assumption to make in the general case,
and I know it doesn't apply here.
Immutable notices have been rejected from Debian before, for this same reason.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 11:00:01AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You must include appropriate and accurate copyright notices on each
source file, and in a reasonable and appropriate place in any binary
file.
Not clear enough. A quick reader
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if you don't want to deal with binaries there, then rip that
clause off and just say:
You must include an appropriate, accurate, and complete copyright
notice on each source file.
But what is an accurate, appropriate and complete copyright notice
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If they did not pick on this, there is sane reason to say this is
ok.
I don't think that is a safe assumption to make in the general case,
and I know it doesn't apply here.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:22:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I just don't see how compelling source
distribution from a networked provider actually increases freedom --
since I don't care about changing the code I have, I care about
changing the code *they* have.
Here's the loophole:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:22:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I just don't see how compelling source
distribution from a networked provider actually increases freedom --
since I don't care about changing the code I have, I care about
changing
Well, thanks to all repliers, unfortunately the useful answer to my
question has missed. You're replies don't really help me, so if someone
finds the time to give me a short answer what I should do, then I would
be happy. Otherwise I rely on the statements of Rob Lanphier and put the
helix stuff
Thomas Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, thanks to all repliers, unfortunately the useful answer to my
question has missed. You're replies don't really help me, so if someone
finds the time to give me a short answer what I should do, then I would
be happy. Otherwise I rely on the
I would really like someone to map one of the cited problems with the
RPSL to a stated requirement in the DFSG. We might be willing to engage
in a conversation about changing the RPSL, but not in an environment
where it is clearly subject to the whims of whoever happens to be
discussing the
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 11:44:32AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote:
I would really like someone to map one of the cited problems with the
RPSL to a stated requirement in the DFSG.
Trying to treat the DFSG as a set of rules *will not work*. That's
what the G means. It's not written in that style and
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 11:02:57PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
There might be a case where we are seeing a common clause in licenses
where there is significant belief on -legal that it might make a
license non-free but it cannot be clearly, explicitly (unanimously?)
tied back to existing
Rob Lanphier wrote:
I would really like someone to map one of the cited problems with the
RPSL to a stated requirement in the DFSG.
It's understandably frustrating to come into a debian-legal discussion about a
license without having been on the list for a while, since in fact we don't
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 02:25:13PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 11:02:57PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
After some discussion, if there is significant opinion here that such
a clause *is* non-free, a DFSG change should be proposed to make that
explicit. That way we
Wow! I hadn't realized there was somebody from Real interested in
addressing this. If there's a prospect of seeing the RPSL evolve into
something Debian can consider free, that's likely to motivate a *lot*
more work from those here.
I should preface what I'm about to say with this: the DFSG do
Andreas wrote:
The MySQL folks have a *new* statement [...]
http://zak.greant.com:/licensing/rlog?f=licensing/FLOSS-exception.txt
I think requirement 0.b(ii), as introduced in version 1.5 of the exception,
might need extra work to fulfill, since Debian vendors do not always provide
source
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 04:26:39PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
RPSL 2.1a *might* be non-free. It prohibits some sorts of
modifications -- not only those necessary to prevent fraud and
preserve copyright notices,
Not that such restrictions are okay, or even necessary. These things
were
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:30:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I'll do this in the next day or so.
It took me a week to get to this, but I've done it (message attached).
I'll pass along whatever I learn.
--
G. Branden Robinson| When dogma enters the brain, all
Debian
Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would love to work with the Debian project on making sure RPSL is
Debian-free. However, it makes it really difficult to engage the
RealNetworks Legal department when there's a lot of discussion about
personal tastes, but no mapping back to DFSG
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:50:22PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
I'm not sure I agree here. I feel like the DFSG has special casing of
individual clauses scattered throughout the document, such as 6 and 8, and
that
adding a choice of venue clause guideline would fit with those just fine. That
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the detailed reply. Some comments inline. Some will have to
wait for later, as there's a lot going on here in the next couple of
weeks (two conferences, and we're short staffed...if anyone is
interested in a job in Seattle, drop me a line...)
On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 13:26,
Hi Matthew,
Yes, it probably was me you spoke to at GUADEC, though there were so
many new faces, I have to admit to losing track of everyone I met.
In broad strokes, what we're trying to accomplish with the patent clause
is this: we're giving a license to our patents (and our copyright) in
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:15:23AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I apologize if I failed to respond to arguments in your initial mail; I
can assure you it was not intentional. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to
find the subthread you are referring to.
My post may have been :
* Branden Robinson:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:02:25AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
I think the Dictator Test itself is highly questionable, and even more
its rationale. It's a disguised attack on copyleft in general.
As the proposer of the Dictator Test, I call bullshit.
I'm perfectly
* Josh Triplett:
How about something vaguely like:
If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
to that party, you must either:
a) Distribute the complete corresponding machine-readable
* Andrew Suffield:
All of which is belied by the fact that the GPL contains a very
careful definition of Program which has obviously been crafted to
apply to any literary work.
The definition of Program in the GPL is about as precise as the
definition of Point in Euclidean Geometry.
However,
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:11:52PM -0600, Neal Richter wrote:
2) Can I reasonably argue that htdig is gpl (or lgpl) if its linked
against a 3 or a 4 cloause BSD license? - htdig .3.1.6 builds static
libraries (.a) it links against.
Sure you can!
Note that although the Free Software
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:15:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
More clearly (according to my understanding), the resulting binary
is--it pulls in pieces of readline--but the source is not. (I'm not sure
if this impacts your point, but it's an important distinction.)
That's debatable. If
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:13:44AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
However, even though the GPL allows for a broad interpretation of
Program, the GPL hasn't been designed to be applied to non-programs
which are often distributed in a form that is not machine-readable
(see Francesco's message).
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:12:44PM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote:
In broad strokes, what we're trying to accomplish with the patent clause
is this: we're giving a license to our patents (and our copyright) in
exchange for not being sued by the licensee over patent infringment.
Note that this
Andrew Suffield wrote:
This is a non-issue. It's also silly. There is no infrastructure for
distributing things that aren't machine-readable in Debian.
Well, sometimes we do that T-shirt thing.
We *sell* those :P
/me starts drafting a GR
~ESP
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:53:25AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:13:44AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
However, even though the GPL allows for a broad interpretation of
Program, the GPL hasn't been designed to be applied to non-programs
which are often distributed
MiguelGea [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello debian-legal,
I'm thinking about packaging SRP for debian.
Question 1: I'm not sure if there are any problem on packaging it. What
do you think about?
Please note that SRP is patented; that's part of SRP's licensing that
tends to make people
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh wow, a bastard child of the MIT and 4-clause BSD licenses. Somebody
was on the really good crack when they did that.
Yeah, don't get me started on Stanford and software licenses. Our more
recent stuff, at least in the central IT organization, is
45 matches
Mail list logo
